Sunderlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case Number: Not extracted
Decision Date: 13 November 1952
Coram: Bhagwati, J.
In this matter the Court noted that the accused was charged with having, on or about 25-7-1951 at the village of Bhiharihar, murdered Behra, an act punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code, and that on the same day and at the same place he also robbed Behra of his property and voluntarily caused hurt to Behra, an act punishable under Section 394 of the Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge conducted the trial with the assistance of assessors for the charge under Section 302 and with the assistance of a jury for the charge under Section 394. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilt with respect to the offence under Section 394. The assessors, by a majority, held that the accused was guilty of an offence under Section 323 rather than the offence under Section 302 with which he had originally been charged. The learned Judge accepted the jury’s finding on the Section 394 charge and also adopted the majority opinion of the assessors, thereby convicting the accused of the offences under Sections 394 and 323 and acquitting him of the offence under Section 302. The accused appealed against the conviction imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, while the Government appealed against the acquittal on the Section 302 charge. The High Court affirmed the conviction under Section 394, set aside the conviction under Section 323, held the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 and sentenced him to death. Consequently, the accused filed an appeal as of right under the Constitution against the High Court’s conviction under Section 302 and the death sentence.
The prosecution’s case was that the accused, who was a friend of the deceased Behra—who was described as a man of licentious character—had, on 25-7-1951, taken Behra to Bidhari on the pretense that a woman was waiting there. The accused then led the deceased towards Bidhari and from there towards the river. On the afternoon of 26-7-1951 the dead body of Behra was discovered in a remote spot on the way to the river, and this information was reported to the police. The police commenced an investigation, and the body of Behra was identified on 27-7-1951. A post-mortem examination was performed on the body by Dr. Dube. The accused was arrested on the same day and, during interrogation, he directed the police to a goldsmith named Bhagwandas, from whom a gold bar—into which a half-gold mohur that the accused had sold to the goldsmith had been melted—was recovered. He also led the police to a person named Bishandas Tularam, from whom two silver churas that the accused had pledged were recovered. The half-gold mohur and the two silver churas were identified, as later established by certain witnesses, as items habitually worn by the deceased. A final post-mortem report was filed by Dr. Dube on 3-8-1951, and the accused was presented before the Magistrate, who committed him to the Sessions for trial.
After the body had been recovered, a final post-mortem report was prepared by Dr Dube on 3 August 1951. The accused was then arraigned before the Magistrate, who ordered that the case be committed to the Sessions Court for trial. The prosecution presented a series of witnesses to establish the circumstances of the alleged offence. The first two witnesses, identified as P W 1 Bhairon and P W 2 Latoo, testified that they had seen the accused together with the deceased at approximately two o’clock in the afternoon on 25 July 1951. The third witness, P W 13 Bhagwandas, a goldsmith, produced a gold bar into which a half-gold mohur, previously sold by the accused to him, had been melted; he said the transaction occurred on the morning following the alleged murder. The fourth witness, also labelled P W 13 (a clerical error), Bishandas Tularam, recounted that the accused approached him at sunset on the day of the alleged murder, offered to sell the half-gold mohur, and, when the accused learned that Bishandas had no money, accepted a pledge of two silver churas instead. Additional witnesses—P W 4 Iswariprasad, P W 6 Buddhu, P W 9 Mathuraprasad and P W 16 Chiddi—stated that the half-gold mohur and the silver churas were habitually worn by the deceased. Moreover, P W 4, P W 9 and P W 16 positively identified the silver churas recovered from Bishandas Tularam as the very items that had been worn by the deceased. Relying on this collective evidence, the learned Sessions Judge concluded that the accused and the deceased had indeed been seen together on the date in question, that the accused had inflicted injury upon the deceased and had robbed him of the half-gold mohur and the silver churas, and consequently convicted the accused of offences punishable under Section 394 and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The lower part of the body had been consumed by wild animals, leaving only the upper portion, which enabled identification of the remains as those of Behra. Because of the mutilated condition of the corpse, Dr Dube was unable to state definitively that death resulted from strangulation; therefore, the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of the murder charge under Section 302.
The High Court, however, differed in its assessment. It held that Dr Dube’s medical opinion was sufficiently reliable to conclude that the cause of death was strangulation, and on that basis it convicted the accused of the murder offence under Section 302. Counsel for the accused, appearing as a representative of the defence, argued that the High Court should not have interfered lightly with the Sessions Judge’s finding, especially since the accused had already been acquitted of the murder charge and the presumption of innocence should have been given greater effect. The defence counsel further contended that Dr Dube’s evidence was not satisfactory and expressed the opinion that death was probably, but not certainly, caused by strangulation. The counsel therefore urged that the conviction for murder be set aside, emphasizing the lack of conclusive medical evidence and the importance of respecting the lower court’s reasoned acquittal.
The Court observed that the High Court’s conviction of the accused depended chiefly on excerpts from Modi’s textbook on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, and that these excerpts had never been put to Dr Dube while he was on the stand. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court was not justified in reaching an adverse conclusion against the accused merely by relying on those passages. The Court further noted that if the conviction had rested solely on the quoted material from Modi, the accused would have a substantial point in his favour. However, the record contained ample evidence indicating that the accused alone was responsible for the death of the deceased. Both the accused and the deceased were observed together at about two o’clock on 25-7-1951 by two witnesses, identified as PW 1 and PW 2. It was established that immediately after the alleged murder the accused approached Bishandas Tularam, carrying a gold half-mohur and silver churas, and offered to sell them. Bishandas Tularam declined to purchase the half-gold mohur but accepted the pledge of the silver churas. The following morning the accused proceeded to Bhagwandas, a goldsmith, and sold the half-gold mohur, which Bhagwandas subsequently melted into a gold bar. The accused was apprehended on 27-7-1951 and, during the investigation, he himself guided the police to both Bishandas Tularam and Bhagwandas. From their custody, the silver churas and the gold bar were recovered together with the relevant documents evidencing the pledge and the sale by the accused to these parties. The silver churas were identified by witnesses PW 4, PW 9 and PW 16 as the very ornaments habitually worn by the deceased. Additionally, PW 4, PW 6, PW 9 and PW 16 testified that the deceased regularly wore silver churas as well as a half-gold mohur. When questioned before the committing Magistrate, the accused acknowledged that if PW 18 and PW 16 claimed that Behra habitually wore silver churas, a gold tabiz and a ring, and that the silver churas produced were the same he used to wear, that was acceptable; he nevertheless denied having made a comparable statement when examined by the learned Sessions Judge. The accused maintained that the half-gold mohur and the silver churas belonged to him, that he had pledged the churas and sold the mohur as his own property, and that he had realised money from those transactions. However, this contention rested solely on his own assertion, whereas the testimonies of PW 4, PW 9 and PW 16 were conclusive in establishing that the silver churas recovered from Bishandas Tularam’s custody were indeed the same churas habitually worn by the deceased.
The evidence presented at trial conclusively identified the silver churas and other ornaments as the very items habitually worn by the deceased at the time of his death. The accused was unable to furnish any satisfactory explanation for how he came into possession of those specific ornaments on the very same day on which the alleged murder was said to have occurred. Consequently, the totality of the circumstantial material, when considered together, was sufficient to attribute responsibility for the deceased’s murder to the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Moreover, even setting aside the medical testimony establishing strangulation as the cause of death, there remains no doubt that the accused, and the accused alone, caused the fatal injury. In light of these findings, the Court concurs with the High Court’s determination that the accused had committed the offence defined in Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction recorded under Section 394 cannot be contested before this Court, and any attempt to overturn it is rendered futile because the conviction under Section 302 and the attendant death sentence were correctly imposed. Accordingly, the present appeal does not succeed, and the Court orders that the appeal be dismissed with costs, leaving the convictions and sentences affirmed as they stand.